Magoroth

ebuc wrote:

Putin for peace? AI ..' Timeline: The temporary truce began on October 29, 2026, and expired on Sunday evening, November 2, 2026. '.. Duhh, MAGA ignores truth of invaded who. Why do MAGAs head-space live so much in a false narrative? Is it they fear the King of Royal { non-sense }?

Some aspects of MAGA is such a false narrative joke. Putin begins a war, Trumpet/MAGA choose Putin and Kim Ungh Pooh over Democracy of Ukraine.

USA! USA! jhas been Putin-Pooh! Putin-Pooh! Janurary 6th and much worse corruption and violence support for few years now.

Some of MAGA = Mental Association of Gorgonic Apes.

The rest are a single trillionarre and billionaire CEOs. Rich getting richer and poor getting poorer for some 40 plus years now.

You barely speak English mate, I don’t think you have the right to tell people what MAGA is or isn’t, go to school first lol

I’d actually ask you to explain what you mean by this since I can’t quite put it into words. It seems to me you’re misusing words here

GreatfulGoy wrote:

The title of the thread mistakes libertarians for conservatives in the first place.

Islam is one of the most conservative religions of all time. It's hilarious that anyone thinks conservative Christians have a real party in USA, they have capitalist pig vs capitalist cow.

This is technically true but why would anyone even want this?

There are degrees of conservatism, and in any event it is not clear what is meant by “conservative Christianity”. How conservative? Jehovah’s Witnesses?

Most people who practice Christianity don’t want this.

RemyBrown wrote:

Right now, we're speaking the modern 21st century Christain prose; American.

Which is spoken by millions of non-Christians

RemyBrown wrote:

Jews speak their own language and had their own kingdom for centuries.

Which prose? Hebrew? Yiddish? Christians and Muslims had their own exclusive proses too (historically).

Ah yes, the unknown CHRISTIAN language hitherto spoken by all Christians!

FLRW wrote:

Yes, In the UK, about 25% of Jews do not believe in God or any higher power, while 56% of synagogue members do not believe in God.

Why do they even go to synagogue then

I’m a little confused how the question “Should we murder the Jews” even entered your mind

Debby wrote:

The love of money is the root of all evil. 1 Timothy 6:10

The Jews don’t get it. The majority of billionaires in America are Jews.

Find me a single society that isn’t built on greed on the face of this planet.

RemyBrown wrote:

They try and argue that Judaism is an ethnicity because they have low rates of marrying non-Jews even in diaspora.

That's the case with every religion ever. I don't see too many Christians and Muslims marrying each other.

If Ethnic Jews are a thing, then so are ethnic Christians.

Should we murder the Jews? No (I have to be clear for Kohai because Queers are snowflakes). Your Queer Jewish snowflake self should not be murdered for being a Queer Jewish snowflake.

But sometimes, Jews are illogical. Being illogical shouldn't get you killed, but it should get you criticized (like now).

It’s a reason it’s stayed an ethnic religion and hasn’t become a universal one like the other two you mentioned, along with them not proselytising, but by itself it is not the reason Jewishness is an ethnicity - Jews speak their own language and had their own kingdom for centuries. That is what makes it an ethnicity; the other two are just how the religion is kept in-group.

Kermos wrote:

@FLRW wrote in post #610: The following will refute Kermos’s claims on the Big Bang Theory. David Rowland is an independent writer and researcher who has self-published alternative claims arguing that the Big Bang theory is false and logically impossible. …snip… mainstream scientific community views the Big Bang theory as overwhelmingly supported …snip

To Mr. MIT trained nuclear scientist,

You refuted yourself, silly scientist.

You believe in the Big Bang, and your your Big Bang is not a proven fact, so yours is faith.

Rowland believes in an infinite universe without beginning according to you, and his infinite universe is not a proven fact, so his is faith.

The Rowland quotes, that I presented in post #61 and post #199 remain valid.

Would you kindly share with me how you refuted my belief that yours is a Big Bang belief because I’m not finding it?

And while you’re at it, where is your response to my CMBR disrupting post #607 response to your CMBR faith filled post? My post that you skipped for your apparent lack of scientific acumen. It’s the third post above your current post.

A believer in Lord Jesus Christ, Kermos

Wtf are we even supposed to have for the beginning of the Universe *except* a leap of faith lmao how is this even an argument

Like regardless of what theory you come up with, the fact is that at this stage, any theory is just wild guesswork

Kermos wrote:

@ebuc wrote in post #587: Since a photon’s energy is proportional to its frequency (E=hf), a loss of energy results in a decrease in frequency and a corresponding increase in wavelength.

I see that you subscribe to the MITman Model (post #465) school of thought which holds that your faulty E=hf formula concludes with you performing the G=(+1)+(-1)+(-1) formula where G must equal 0 for logical consistency. Your loss of photonic energy is a loss of photonic frequency which is two decreases, but you have a single increase in your formula with the wavelength. Hence your imbalanced equation garbage physics are illuminated by the MITman Model (post #465)!

@ebuc wrote in post #587: so from my perspective

Your perspective is not based on the scientific method. Your perspective is your faith.

The Big Bang is a leap of faith.

My man, if you deny anything and everything that disagrees with what you say and believe, what even is the point of arguing? If you desperately want to believe in this nonsense, feel free to do so, you don’t need our permission.

That being said, no matter how much you cry about it, you’re not only wrong, you’re provably wrong, about as far as one can prove something about anything.

Why do you accept e=mc^2 but not e=hf?

I’ll humour you. e=mc^2 doesn’t apply to the photon because it has no mass, and yet it has energy (and momentum). e=hf has been experimentally confirmed multiple times; Wikipedia says it was confirmed in 1919 and in 1960, along (ironically enough) with gravitational blue-shift.

You selectively accept formulas/ideas that agree with whatever preconceived notion you have about the Universe, and reject whatever doesn’t. This is quite clearly insane. If you are not yet psychotic, you are certainly well on the road to losing touch with reality, and I don’t mean this in an insulting manner.

I believe in God too, but I don’t feel the need to disprove the Big Bang by denying facts that have been known for 100 years, and not just discovered by anyone, but by big names like Einstein, Planck, etc. Do you not realise how crazy this is? I know you won’t, but you should do some self-examination and consider whether such a faith (especially in irrelevant details like these, whether the Big Bang created the Universe [which COULD be entirely consistent with God’s existence]) is worth holding. Surely you can abandon irrelevant details whilst keeping the substance. Otherwise, I’m afraid you will either become insane or an atheist incredibly fast.

But you refute yourself. How can E=MC^2 ever be in equilibrium for a photon when its mass is 0? Its energy is not zero as you admit, so obviously the formula does not apply to the photon.

Again, I literally linked studies that tested REDSHIFT on EARTH using manmade objects, in 1907, using motors on a mirror.

”Light has never been tested at 6,0000,000000,000 miles from Earth”

1. This is an unreasonable demand. Why don’t we make these demands of you, since you’re the one coming up with a theory backed by nothing but sand? I make the sand comparison with the mental image of you trying to grasp a fistful of sand only to have it crumble and fall out of your fingers.
2. You complain that redshift has never been tested on Earth/its immediate environs, and now you complain that the speed of light (directly related to redshift in your view since according to you violet light travels faster than red light) has only been tested on Earth. This is a pretty clear contradiction…

”There is no redshift involved in radio waves”

No, but they are photons of longer wavelength and thus lower energy, so thus they should travel more slowly according to you, which doesn’t happen. Again, this refutes your theory.

Same goes for gamma rays.

The point of me bringing up gold was to show that relativity and the value of the speed of light has direct influence on everyday life, it is not just a theory about spacetime and astronomy. Denial of the speed of light makes a lot of nuclear processes and just the physical behaviour of certain substances change radically, quite possibly making life as we know it impossible.

It ignores E=MC^2 because it has nothing to do with this formula. Again, this formula cannot apply to photons or other massless particles because they have nothing mass yet they do have energy. You cannot have 0 on one side of the equation and non-zero on the other.

I eliminate nothing, it is you who persists in claiming that e=mc^2 has a relevance in this situation, when it is pretty fucking blatant that it doesn’t if you just think for two seconds.

Kermos wrote:

@Magoroth wrote in post #565: For the record I had to break down your post with AI because it’s so utterly incomprehensible. Wtf does “red-shift related phrase” even mean?

Poor neuron-deprived Magoroth, you had to use augmented intelligence (AI) in order to understand a simple reference to your own writing!

@Magoroth wrote in post #565: It’s like 123114 extra words for literally no reason except to appear smart.

Obviously, your lack of innate neural capacity requires that I be pedantic with you. By the way, you overcounted my post #563’s word count by a factor exceeding 272, so your brain is delusionally deficient for debating your 13,800,000,000 year old Big Bang.

@Magoroth wrote in post #565: 1) “delta of the speed of light” - No, it’s the difference in velocity between the source that emits light and the receiver. The speed of light remains the same. The energy of a photon isn’t related to its velocity, which is constant, it’s related to its frequency. Not sure what you’re even trying to say here

I’m about to disect your concepts of your above paragraph very carefully for you, Magoroth.

You wrote “difference in velocity”.

Velocity is simply defined as “Rapidity or speed of motion; swiftness” (source thefreedictionary.com/velocity).

The “velocity” concept in your writing represents precisely the speed of light (C) inside of Einstein’s infamous E=MC2 equation.

I’ll state this for you another way. The speed of light (C) and the velocity of a photon (C) are exactly the same thing, and both ways of saying the same thing apply to Einstein’s infamous E=MC2 equation.

Your brain’s “it’s the difference in velocity between the source that emits light and the receiver” confusedly contradicts your brain’s immediately subsequent “The energy of a photon isn’t related to its velocity, which is constant”, and I can prove it by quoting a physics textbook here, “A photon of violet light, therefore, has more energy than a photon of red light” (from 4.1: Wave Properties at LibreTexts).

The next segment of your broken brain’s output is “it’s related to its frequency” where you attempt to disintegrate the energy (E) relationship with the speed of light (C) inside of Einstein’s infamous E=MC2 equation.

And, finally, your brain’s blather of “Not sure what you’re even trying to say here” is a lie or you are stupid.

@Magoroth wrote in post #565: 2) “results …snip…. We are discussing Doppler redshift, not cosmological redshift.

This whole thread is about cosmology in reference to the Big Bang, just look at the thread title, Magoroth, “Show Me How The Big Bang Theory Is Not A Leap Of Faith”.

Your whole “E=MC2 has nothing to do with this. The energy of the system is the kinetic energy of the source plus the energy of the photon/light beam itself. E=MC2 is an equivalence formula between mass and energy, it has nothing to do with this topic” is a poorly crafted deception.

Einstein’s E=MC2 equation is an equivalence formula between energy (E), mass (M), and photonic velocity a.k.a. the speed of light (C).

The Magoroth Model, E=M

The effect of your brain’s “E=MC^2 is an equivalence formula between mass and energy” results in a new, non-Einstein equation of E=M. Your words explicitly excluded the speed of light (C) from E=MC2, so you end up with the Magoroth Model of E=M where E is energy and M is mass.

Back to Einstein’s infamous E=MC2 equation.

The “system” in your “the energy of the system is the kinetic energy” is energy (E) inside of the “system” defined by Einstein in E=MC2 with the constituent speed of light (C) that is so very integral to this “Energy Displacement inside E=MC2 regarding the Doppler effect for light a.k.a. red-shift” topic going back to post #361.

The red-shift concept pushes the light particle speed way beyond your maximum speed limit for light of 186,000 miles per second in Einstein’s E=MC2 equation, and the red-shift concept amounts to Newton’s Third Law of Motion (Law of Action and Reaction) that I explained to you earlier in post #548, and Newton’s Law amounts to the clause, “for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction”. You are desperately trying to escape physics, Magoroth.

The action of photonic energy (E) displacement inside E=MC2 requires an equal and opposite reaction inside E=MC2, and the reaction is explained in the next paragraph.

Red-shift remains science fiction because a photon contains no mass (M) for E=MC2 per your physics, so you don’t displace energy (E) inside E=MC2, instead, you delusionally delete energy (E) from E=MC2 thus leaving Einstein’s Theory in a state of disequilibrium. The “Energy Displacement inside E=MC2 regarding the Doppler effect for light a.k.a. red-shift” section of post #361 contains the details.

The horrid state of your observational competence, your abysmal analytical ability, and your pathetic research skills are glaringly visible, again.

I remind you about your bringing up “Satan” in your writing “you can’t claim the experimental results are corrupted by Satan” in your post #524. Since Lord and God Jesus Christ is not a God of confusion but of peace (1 Corinthians 14:33), then your confusion detailed in the above paragraphs of this post places you squarely in the domain of Satan the devil with you preaching your discipline of delusion (Jeremiah 10:8) about red-shift and the Big Bang.

Red-shift is a leap of belief, so the Big Bang is a leap of faith.

Please state clearly what the relevance of the energy difference between violet and red is. They both travel at the same velocity, their frequency differs.

Also E=MC^2 isn’t a system. Where’s the forces? It states that if you convert a particle of mass M into a photon (particle-antiparticle annihilation), you get a photon whose energy is equal to the the mass of the particle (rest mass) times the speed of light squared. There is no system, what system could there possibly be in E=MC^2?

Again, red shift doesn’t push anything past anything. The speed of light is constant. Photons’ oscillations appear to you to be more rapid or slower depending on the velocity and this is conmon sense since light is a wave.

Or are you seriously suggesting photons of different frequency travel at different velocities? Why has literally the speed of light been consistently found to be 300,000km/s in a vacuum? Do you actually believe all the photons we tested were of the same wavelength?

And more importantly; how do you explain radio waves, they travel “instantly” as far as we are concerned. If you were correct they should be much slower than other photons since they have a very low frequency, correct? This doesn’t happen.

We have sent messages via radio and received messages via radio from the Moon, which is approximately 1 light second away from Earth (Apollo 11 was televised), and it had a delay of 1 second.

And this is true for gamma rays too; a lot of nuclear physics would break down if gamma rays were faster than other photons.

You seem to further be doubting the validity of general relativity but I don’t think you realise how far reaching its implications are. It even affects the chemical characteristics of certain metals, like gold for instance. Why is gold yellow and not white? It’s because of relativity, the electrons are so energetix they move at considerable fractions of the speed of light.

Also… why would anyone call it the speed of light if it weren’t constant? They would just say the speed of blue light or whatever.

I don’t think you understood what I said. When a source moves away from a receiver, the speed of light doesn’t change, both the source and the receiver would agree the speed of the beam of the light travelling from one to the other is 300,000 km/s. If the source stops moving with respect to the receiver, the speed the measure of the light beam remains the same 300,000km/s. The kinetic energy of the source is then 0 since its not moving, BUT in the case where it IS moving (Doppler effect), it is non-zero.

Yes congratulations Einstein E=MC^2 is the equivalence formula between mass (matter) and pure energy (photons), this is what I’ve been saying all along lmao

Kermos wrote:

Here is the post, special for you, FLRW, which I mentioned in my previous post.

@FLRW wrote in post #459: See, …snip

Mr. nuclear scientist FLRW, you cravenly hide behind your undescribed content URL (not even a hyperlink), but I write to you requesting that you show your work in this thread, here on DebateCraft.com, where both of us are engaged in debate. I’ll provide you an example with this post to you. You seem unable to address the points I present to you. Your position is so weak that you repeat yourself, but I systematically dissect your arguments, and I methodologically dismantle your scientific fact statements into their proper state as your sacred faith.

Astrophysicists recalculated CMBR from data including JWST readings, and the study details astronomer astrologer’s CMBR isn’t what they scienced (knew)

Pavel Kroupa, astrophysicist and professor at the Helmholtz Institute for Radiation and Nuclear Physics at the University of Bonn and Charles University in Prague, expressed “According to our calculations, it may not exist at all” regarding the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) as per his study published in the journal Nuclear Physics B (source: “Goodbye to the Big Bang theory: a university challenges everything we thought we knew and suggests that the creation of the universe may have been something else” (Austin Caldwell; MARCA; 2025-06-28).

Kroupa, with additional author Eda Gjergo, expose evidence against the existence of the CMBR. These two extracts from their abstract explain:

A previously overlooked foreground component is the formation of massive early-type galaxies (ETGs), which can no longer be ignored, particularly in light of JWST’s detection of massive, evolved systems at extreme redshifts (z>13).

Even in our most conservative estimates, massive ETGs account for 1.4% up to the full present-day CMB energy density.

(source: “The impact of early massive galaxy formation on the cosmic microwave background” (Eda Gjergo, Pavel Kroupa; Nuclear Physics B published by Elsevier aa distributed on ScienceDirect.com; August 2025; Article: 116931; Volume 1017))

Astronomer astrologers best case scenario is that a “definitive 2.725 K” is off by 1.4% which means the MIT trained nuclear scientist FLRW has science fiction expressed as scientific fact in his own composition in this thread of:

@FLRW wrote in post #412: 2. Modern Verification: Modern precision satellites like NASA’s COBE and ESA’s Planck Observatory have measured the CMB’s true current temperature down to a definitive 2.725 K.

Which is recorded in post #421 with my response.

That study’s 1.4% is the lower of the conservative echelon.

The study’s full present-day CMB energy density is the higher of the conservative echelon which excludes a so-called CMBR from being a Big Bang indicator!

This examination of the study’s conservative echelon leaves the liberal echelon unexplored. The implications of a liberal echelon destroy the Big Bang.

Scientist sorcerers cling to their Big Bang belief despite being faced with good evidence demonstrating that the Big Bang is a leap of faith.

Why do you sound like an artificial intelligence?

Kermos wrote:

@Magoroth wrote in post #550: There’s no energy loss, it comes back in the kinetic energy difference between the source and the receiver

@Magoroth wrote in post #551: So the net energy of the system remains the same.

Your red-shift related phrase “the kinetic energy difference between the source and the receiver” represents nothing less than the dellta (change) increase of speed of light (C) inside of Einstein’s infamous E=MC2 equation for a photon because “A photon of violet light, therefore, has more energy than a photon of red light” (from 4.1: Wave Properties at LibreTexts); furthermore, your antiphysics red-shift continuation phrase “So the net energy of the system remains the same” for E=MC2 results in a static energy (E) despite your first “the kinetic energy difference” statement’s dynamic energy (E), so you are very confused about mathematics and delusional about physics!

Your phrase “the kinetic energy difference” pushes the light particle speed way beyond your maximum speed limit for light of 186,000 miles per second in Einstein’s E=MC2 equation, and your “the kinetic energy difference” phrase amounts to Newton’s Third Law of Motion (Law of Action and Reaction) that I explained to you earlier in post #548, and Newton’s Law amounts to the clause, “for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction”. You are desperately trying to escape physics, Magoroth.

The action of photonic energy (E) displacement inside E=MC2 requires an equal and opposite reaction inside E=MC2, and the reaction is explained in the next paragraph.

Red-shift remains science fiction because a photon contains no mass (M) for E=MC2 per your physics, so you don’t displace energy (E) inside E=MC2, instead, you delusionally delete energy (E) from E=MC2 thus leaving Einstein’s Theory in a state of disequilibrium. The “Energy Displacement inside E=MC2 regarding the Doppler effect for light a.k.a. red-shift” section of post #361 contains the details.

The horrid state of your observational competence, your abysmal analytical ability, and your pathetic research skills are glaringly visible, again.

I remind you about your bringing up “Satan” in your writing “you can’t claim the experimental results are corrupted by Satan” in your post #524. Since Lord and God Jesus Christ is not a God of confusion but of peace (1 Corinthians 14:33), then your confusion detailed in the above paragraphs of this post places you squarely in the domain of Satan the devil with you preaching your discipline of delusion (Jeremiah 10:8) about red-shift and the Big Bang.

Red-shift is a leap of belief, so the Big Bang is a leap of faith.

For the record I had to break down your post with AI because it’s so utterly incomprehensible. Wtf does “red-shift related phrase” even mean? It’s like 123114 extra words for literally no reason except to appear smart.

1) “delta of the speed of light” - No, it’s the difference in velocity between the source that emits light and the receiver. The speed of light remains the same. The energy of a photon isn’t related to its velocity, which is constant, it’s related to its frequency. Not sure what you’re even trying to say here

2) “results in a static energy”

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. E=MC^2 has nothing to do with this. The energy of the system is the kinetic energy *of the source* plus the energy of the photon/light beam itself. E=MC^2 is an equivalence formula between mass and energy, it has nothing to do with this topic

3) “pushes the light particle speed past 186,000” No, it doesn’t. See 2).

4) “the action of photonic energy displacement” I have no idea what this means, but, again, E=MC^2 has nothing to do with this and I don’t get why you keep bringing it up

5) Nothing was deleted, the photon’s energy is “transformed” into the kinetic energy of the system. Not really properly put since there’s no transformation, it’s just a difference of “interpretation” in a light beam’s frequency between a stationary and a moving observer.

6) Ok.

7) Red-shift and the Big-Bang are completely separate. We are discussing Doppler redshift, not cosmological redshift.

So the net energy of the system remains the same.

Kermos wrote:

@Magoroth wrote in post #532: Literally your whole phrase can be summarised as: “photons cannot lose energy because that would make me big sad"

So, I have two observations to make:

a) Congratulations on saying so little while filling an entire paragraph.

b) Photons can lose energy, there’s literally no reason why they shouldn’t be able to, you draw your conclusions out of thin air - aka you believe what you want to believe and you dress the facts up to make them say what you want.

Basically this entire thread is you complaining about people being mean to you and ppl fabricating/misinterpreting science… you’re projecting so hard you’re effectively two-dimensional

Your “b) Photons can lose energy, there’s literally no reason why they shouldn’t be able to” is precisely that which I have been conveying, yet you ignorantly continued by implying that’s not what I’ve conveyed. Here are details for you to gnarl your teeth, Magoroth.

Newton’s Third Law of Motion (Law of Action and Reaction) amounts to the clause, “for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction”. This thread is about physics, Magoroth.

The action of photonic energy (E) displacement inside E=MC2 requires an equal and opposite reaction inside E=MC2, and the reaction is explained in the next paragraph.

Red-shift remains science fiction because a photon contains no mass (M) for E=MC2 per your physics, so you don’t displace energy (E) inside E=MC2, instead, you delusionally delete energy (E) from E=MC2 thus leaving Einstein’s Theory in a state of disequilibrium. The “Energy Displacement inside E=MC2 regarding the Doppler effect for light a.k.a. red-shift” section of post #361 contains the details.

The horrid state of your observational competence, your abysmal analytical ability, and your pathetic research skills are glaringly visible, again.

Red-shift is a leap of belief, so the Big Bang is a leap of faith.

There’s no energy loss, it comes back in the kinetic energy difference between the source and the receiver

You dogmatic evolutionists get so very ignorantly confused. Look at the name of this thread, “Show Me How The Big Bang Theory Is Not A Leap Of Faith”. The thread is not titled “show me the Big Bang is a leap of faith” nor “guess whether I believe in your evolutionism scheme or not”. The title of this thread equates to show me the facts, not just haphazardly mentioning a scientist sorcerer or two. And you failed to show me any redshift facts, so you have a redshift leap of faith which leads to a Big Bang leap of faith.

Also nobody brought up evolution so idk why you’re even mentioning this. Please stick to the topic

I don’t even understand why you insist on 1) redshift being false 2) the connection to the Big Bang. Again, redshift can be true and the expansion of space can be false. The former is basically known beyond the shadow of a doubt, the latter is merely an interpretation of some observations.

It’s not even 100 years, it’s been longer than that. Closer to 140 years. Michelson Morley and the ether theory of light did not emerge in a vacuum lol.

It’s a proven fact, insofar as anything experimentally PROVEN by countless experiments over the past 100 hundred years is. Yes, red shift is a bloody fact. The wave-like nature of light is a FACT and has been known for over 100 years. What do you even offer as an alternative because I haven’t seen any.

Light being a wave IMPLIES it should obey the Doppler effect and indeed experiments have shown multiple times that it does. All you’re doing is cherry picking some random observation in a galaxy far far away and saying it disproves red shift; if only one result THAT ISN’T even conclusive btw says “oops we didn’t expect this” whereas countless others do, how the hell do you go to the conclusion that red shift is a myth?

I haven’t even addressed how half your post is you trying to sound intelligent by using big words. “Doublespeak” “you embed"

No, none of this pseudo intellectual garbage you keep trying to peddle, using complex vocabulary doesn’t make you smart.

Wanna hear what does? Making actually good points, which I haven’t seen you make either; you’re ignoring things others have said. For instance, you have yet to address the experiments I linked.

SkepticalOne wrote:

Mental illness may be like a damaged radio receiving a perfectly good signal. The signal itself hasn't necessarily disappeared; the damaged receiver introduces static, distortion, and interference, so the resulting sound no longer accurately reflects the original broadcast

If a radio is damaged, the classical channel doesn't suddenly become heavy metal. The channel doesn't become English AND Spanish.

When the brain suffers severe damage, an individual's personality can completely change. The difference between responsible, polite, even tempered, and impulsive, profane, and volatile is more than just static. This is the difference of descriptions for Phineus Gage before and after a 3.5 foot rod was blown through his frontal lobe.

Individuals with a severed corpus callosum often have dual consciousness. Split brain patient known as Paul S famously had one side of his brain wanting to be a draftsman, and the other an automobile racer. Dr. V.S. Ramachandran described another patient where one hemisphere was a theist and the other an atheist.

This isnt symptoms of faulty receiver. These cases (and many others like them) demonstrate consciousness is emergent properties of a physical brain.

I doubt two separate consciousnesses are created. More probably what happens is you have one consciousness that is aware of what happens in one half of the brain but not in the other. So. it doesn’t demonstrate consciousness is an emergent property of the physical world/brain, which seems unlikely in the extreme to me because, how would you go from something like physics, atoms etc to something as unique as consciousness? That is a question a physicalist has to answer and there are no real answers that can be given.

Kermos wrote:

@Debby wrote in post #503: Redshift produces longer wavelengths (lower frequency)than the original light or electromagnetic radiation emitted by the source. The three main types of redshift (Doppler, gravitational and cosmological).

Red-shift remains science fiction because a photon contains no mass (M) for E=MC2 per your physics, so you don’t displace energy (E) inside E=MC2, instead, you delusionally delete energy (E) from E=MC2 thus leaving Einstein’s Theory in a state of disequilibrium. The “Energy Displacement inside E=MC2 regarding the Doppler effect for light a.k.a. red-shift” section of post #361 contains the details.

Red-shift is a leap of belief, so the Big Bang is a leap of faith.

Literally your whole phrase can be summarised as: “photons cannot lose energy because that would make me big sad"

So, I have two observations to make:

a) Congratulations on saying so little while filling an entire paragraph.

b) Photons can lose energy, there’s literally no reason why they shouldn’t be able to, you draw your conclusions out of thin air - aka you believe what you want to believe and you dress the facts up to make them say what you want.

Basically this entire thread is you complaining about people being mean to you and ppl fabricating/misinterpreting science... you’re projecting so hard you’re effectively two-dimensional

Since you asked so nicely, here, experimental results SHOWING Doppler redshift:

W. Huggins, “Further observations on the spectra of some of the stars and nebulæ, with an attempt to determine therefrom whether these bodies are moving towards or from the earth,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 158, 529–564 (1868).

H. C. Vogel, “Ueber die Bestimmung der Bewegung von Sternen im Visionsradius durch spectrographische Beobachtungen,” Astronomische Nachrichten 119, 97–100 (1888).

“On the Spectrum of ζ Ursae Majoris,” American Journal of Science, ser. 3, 39, 46–47 (1890).

Vogel on β Aurigae. H. C. Vogel, “Researches on the System of the Spectroscopic Binary β Aurigae,” Astrophysical Journal 19, 360 (1904)

Bélopolsky, 1901 (moving mirrors). A. Bélopolsky, “On an Apparatus for the Laboratory Demonstration of the Doppler–Fizeau Principle,” Astrophysical Journal 13, 15 (1901)

B. Galitzin and J. Wilip, “Experimental Test of Doppler’s Principle for Light-Rays,” Astrophysical Journal 26, 49 (1907).

Fabry and Buisson, 1914 (spinning disk). Ch. Fabry and H. Buisson, “Vérification expérimentale du principe de Doppler–Fizeau,” Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences 158, 1498–1500 (meeting of 25 May 1914).

Ives and Stilwell, 1938 (canal rays). H. E. Ives and G. R. Stilwell, “An Experimental Study of the Rate of a Moving Atomic Clock,” Journal of the Optical Society of America 28, 215–226 (1938).

These are just a few experiments showing Doppler redshift. Some of them don’t even look at stars, they’re done in the laboratory with motors and mirrors, so you can’t claim the experimental results are corrupted by Satan

Kermos wrote:

@Magoroth wrote in post #506: Light that reaches us from planets or whatever the fuck (do you believe planets exist?) IS REDSHIFTED when the planet orbits AWAY from us, and BLUE SHIFTED when it moves TOWARDS us. You can see this at play with planets in our solar system since their size, orbital velocity and current positions relative to the Sun are all fully known. It takes the brain the size of a pea to calculate redshift from that. Why the fuck are you denyint shit that is TRIVIAL to prove? whats next, the Earth is flat?

Hey foul mouth Magoroth, show me a single publicly accessible scientific method paper including data as support for your “IS REDSHIFTED when the planet orbits AWAY from us, and BLUE SHIFTED when it moves TOWARDS us. You can see this at play with planets in our solar system”.

Here is astronomical observations that red shift sinks into the abyss.

Astrophysicist Geoffrey Burbidge, noted professor of physics and astronomy at the University of California at San Diego’s Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences with an international team of astrophysicists and astronomers discovered a quasar with an enormous redshift embedded inside a nearby to Earth spiral galaxy with far lower red-shift, so these two celestial objects that need to be the same distance away from Earth due to the collocation are simultaneously greatly separated because of red-shift (both conditions cannot be true). The galaxy is reportedly 300 million light years away while the quasar within the heart of the galaxy is reportedly several billion light years away (source “The Discovery of a High-Redshift X-Ray-Emitting QSO Very Close to the Nucleus of NGC 7319” paper readily publicly available from Table of contents for issue 1, volume 620, The Astrophysical Journal).

Red-shift as a distance calculator and/or age determinant is falsified, and the Big Bang is a leap of faith.

Do you realise the number of scientific theories you have to deny to reach the conclusion that Doppler Red/Blue shift doesn’t exist? Do you not believe light behaves as a wave? Do you deny the validity of the Michelson-Morley experiment, for instance?

In 1871, optical redshift was confirmed when the phenomenon was observed in Fraunhofer lines, using solar rotation, about 0.1 Å in the red.[7] In 1887, Hermann Carl Vogel and Julius Scheiner discovered the "annual Doppler effect", the yearly change in the Doppler shift of stars located near the ecliptic, due to the orbital velocity of the Earth.[8] In 1901, Aristarkh Belopolsky verified optical redshift in the laboratory using a system of rotating mirrors.[9][7]

This is literally from the wiki page. This has been observed experimentally and empirically for over 100 years. Wtf are you even debating?

I would save the kid.

What if you had to choose between saving Stalin or your dog?

I would save the dog.

SergeantLynch wrote:

Yes, Magoroth has a certain way with words...But will Kermos listen...Me thinks not.

I’m not normally this aggressive but to see someone deny such obvious things made me go ballistic lmao

Light that reaches us from planets or whatever the fuck (do you believe planets exist?) IS REDSHIFTED when the planet orbits AWAY from us, and BLUE SHIFTED when it moves TOWARDS us. You can see this at play with planets in our solar system since their size, orbital velocity and current positions relative to the Sun are all fully known. It takes the brain the size of a pea to calculate redshift from that. Why the fuck are you denyint shit that is TRIVIAL to prove?

whats next, the Earth is flat?

Kermos wrote:

@FLRW wrote in post #488: AI says,

I note that you continue to rely on your failure-prone MIT AI IQ. See post #421 for your CMBR MIT AI IQ failure earlier incident.

@FLRW wrote in post #488: Red-shift is not merely red-spectral; it describes any increase in the wavelength (or decrease in frequency) of electromagnetic radiation, regardless of whether the light is visible to the human eye.

Oh, how quickly your brain dead MIT AI IQ got confounded that I conveyed that the electromagnetic spectrum maintains uniformity in the face of red-shift infrared<–red<–orange<–yellow<–green<–blue<–indigo<–violet<–ultraviolet in post #391.

Your brainless MIT AI IQ cannot deal with the mathematical fact that your energy (E) decrease (“decrease in frequency”) contains no mass (M) for E=MC2 per your physics, so you don’t displace energy (E) inside E=MC2, instead, you delusionally delete energy (E) from E=MC2 thus leaving your family guy Einstein’s Theory in a state of disequilibrium. The details follow.

Look for energy (E) in your “c=frequency × wavelength” physics formula (see post #455). Energy (E) is absent from your equation, so the physics principle “A photon of violet light, therefore, has more energy than a photon of red light” (from 4.1: Wave Properties at LibreTexts) requires your red-shift energy (E) displacement must go somewhere, and THAT SOMEWHERE IS UNAVOIDABLY THE SPEED OF LIGHT (C) IN E=MC2!

Equilibrium (=) is fundamental mathematics, so you are either a very low IQ individual or you are a confused person or you are a scientist sorcerer.

You still have the speed of light (C) bursting faster than 186,000 miles per second as a direct result of red-shift with E=MC2!

The Big Bang’s red-shift cosmicdistance ladder base rung is science fiction, so the Big Bang in a leap of faith.

You’re straight up retarded if you think redshift/blueshift are a theory, THESE ARE NOT DEBATABLE FACTS.